Adams v. Trustees UNC Wilmington, et al. - National Association of ...

On September 29, 2006, Cook sent another memorandum toplaintiff. After reminding plaintiff of the criteria forpromotion to full professor, Cook explained that the "overridingconcern regarding [plaintiff's] record to date [was] in the areaof scholarly research productivity," and that plaintiff's recordsince his last promotion did not demonstrate a cumulativetangible pattern of expertise in the discipline. (Compl. Ex.50. ) She added that plaintiff's teaching, while the strongestaspect of his application, did not meet the promotion standardof "distinguished accomplishment."And finally, she wrote thatplaintiff's record of service to the department, college,university, and profession was "insufficient for promotion."(Id. )In response to plaintiff's request for the results of thevote, Cook declined to disclose the count but indicated toplaintiff again that the "overwhelming consensus" of the seniorfaculty was that promotion was unwarranted. (Id.) 10lOPlaintiff argues in his brief that this memorandumrepresented a dramatic departure from Cook's previous position,which he characterizes as having found that his teaching andservice were "adequate for promotion." (Pl. 's Resp. Br. at 10.)This phrase ("adequate for promotion") quotes an email sent bydefendant Cordle (who never reviewed plaintiff's application) toCook in response to the September 18 draft. The email reflectsCordle's understanding of Cook's memorandum. The language Cookactually used, noted above, was far more ambiguous ("within thearea of teaching, the record was adequate, though thediscrepancies between the [student evaluation] scores and peerevaluationsgenerated some concern"; "Within the area of servicethe record was adequate, though concerns were raised regardingyour lack of service [and] some concern was expressed23Case 7:07-cv-00064-H Document 146 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 23 of 39